Mathematical Models for Reliability Allocation and Optimization for Complex Systems

  • Domenico Falcone
  • Alessandro Silvestri
  • Gianpaolo Di BonaEmail author
  • Antonio Forcina
Part of the Springer Series in Reliability Engineering book series (RELIABILITY)


RAMS is an acronym for Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety. These four properties concern the application of important methodologies for designing and managing complex technical systems. The present chapter analyses several reliability allocation techniques present in literature. Starting from well-known methodologies, two reliability allocation methods has been proposed and validated: Integrated Factors Method (I.F.M.) and Critical Flow Method (C.F.M.). We focus on the most important conventional methods to discuss their limitations to motivate the current research.

The proposed methods supply a logic for the analysis of prototype complex systems during the pre-design phase, even if it presents general characteristics that allow this logic to be extended to different design phases. In particular, the proposed CFM method can resolve the shortcomings of the conventional methods with a new reliability approach useful to series-parallel configurations in order to obtain important cost savings. In fact, the results show that the most conventional reliability allocation methods have one fundamental problem: in general, they are designed for complex system with series-configurations (preliminary phase design) but not for series-parallel configurations. The result is an increase of reliability allocated to units (series configuration) in order to guarantee the reliability target system (extremely low failure rate).


Reliability Allocation methods Integrated Factors Method Critical Flow Method 


  1. Barbarino F (1990) Product Safety Engineering. ISEDIGoogle Scholar
  2. Balaban HS, Jeffers HR (1999) The allocation of system reliability. Vol. I. Development of procedures for reliability allocation and testing. Arinc Research Corporation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd JA (1992) Allocation of reliability requirements: a new approach. Proceedings annual reliability and maintainability symposiumGoogle Scholar
  4. Jarrell G (2003) Supplier reliability program guide. The Cessna Aircraft Company, Wichita, KSGoogle Scholar
  5. Advisory Group of Reliability of Electronic Equipment (AGREE) (1957) Reliability of military electronic equipment. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Karmiol ED (1965) Reliability apportionment. Preliminary report EIAM-5, Task II, General Electric, Schenectady, NY, pp 10–22Google Scholar
  7. Bracha VJ (1964) The methods of reliability engineering. Mach Des 7:70–76Google Scholar
  8. Department of Defense of USA (1988) MIL-HDBK-338B. Electronic design reliability handbook, pp 6/13–6/16Google Scholar
  9. Falcone D, De Felice F, Di Bona G, Silvestri A (2004) R.A.M.S. analysis in a sintering plant by the employment of a new Reliability Allocation Method. Modelling and simulation. Marina del Rey, CA, pp 1–3, marzo 2004Google Scholar
  10. Di Bona G, Silvestri A, Forcina A (2016) Critical flow method: a new reliability allocation approach for a thermonuclear system. Qual Reliab Eng Int 32(5):1677–1691. ISSN: 0748-8017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Falcone
    • 1
  • Alessandro Silvestri
    • 1
  • Gianpaolo Di Bona
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonio Forcina
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Cassino and Southern LazioCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations